The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 2028 - Horrifying Footage: Hordes Of Muslims Invade Spain

Episode Date: July 31, 2026

Hordes of Muslims invade the Spanish city of Ceuta, one in three Democrats now identify as socialist, and a new Democrat Senate candidate apparently fathers multiple children with his cousin. Ep. 2028 - - - Today's Sponsors: Cardiff - America’s favorite small business lender, provides the liquidity to move at the speed of business with same-day funding up to $500,000. Apply in under 3 minutes with zero credit impact. Apply now at http://cardiff.co/knowles PureTalk - At just $15 a month for your first three months on ANY plan… now’s a great time to choose PureTalk. Simply go to https://PureTalk.com/KNOWLES to claim this offer. - - - DailyWire+ 🎆 🇺🇸 Today is the LAST DAY for our America 250 SALE!! Get 3-Months of DailyWire+ for just $17.76 📜 Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://dailywire.com/subscribe Becoming a Daily Wire member allows you to see all of our content ad-free. 📲 Download the free Daily Wire app today on iPhone, Android, Roku, Apple TV, Samsung, and more. 📘 My book "Speechless: Controlling Words, Controlling Minds" is available here: https://dwplus.shop/Speechless 📗 My book "Reasons to Vote for Democrats: A Comprehensive Guide" is available here: https://dwplus.shop/ReasonsToVoteForDemocrats 🕯️ Get your Michael Knowles candles: https://thecandleclub.com/collections/michael-knowles 👕 Don’t dress like a squish. Shop my merch here: https://dwplus.shop/MichaelKnowlesMerch - - - Socials: YouTube — https://youtube.com/@MichaelKnowles Facebook — https://www.facebook.com/michaelknowlesshow Instagram — https://www.instagram.com/michaeljknowles TikTok — https://www.tiktok.com/@notmichaelknowles X — https://twitter.com/michaeljknowles - - - Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This episode is brought to you by Cardiff, America's favorite small business lender with over 12 billion funded since 2004. Apply in under three minutes for same day funding up to 500,000 at Cardiff.C.O. slash knolls. Hordes of Muslims are invading Spain again as 60,000 Moroccan migrants pour into the North African city of Utah. Hopefully it will not take the Spaniards eight centuries to kick them out this time, but it very well might, as no one in the West seems to have learned the basic lesson of history. when it comes to Islamic invasion. Then, one in three Democrats now identifies as a socialist. And the new Senate candidate, Democrats chose in Maine, to replace a Nazi rapist, has apparently fathered multiple children with his cousin.

I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles show. Welcome back to the show, Minnesota. now has a new law banning nudification technology. There is apparently man-made horrors behind your comprehension. If you haven't read anything about that, there is a technology that allows you to upload pictures of like that girl in your math class or whatever, you know, the lady at the gym, and nudify them. And Minnesota is banning this. And somehow Elon Musk is being sort of smeared for it. I will get into what's going on. First, though, the bigger story.

a ton of Muslims are invading Spain. This happened yesterday. You had 60,000 Muslim migrants pouring in from Morocco into the North African Spanish city of Utah. And they're just pouring across the border. There's videos of guys just climbing up ladders trying to break into people's homes. There were fires being lit. A first thing you notice about the migrants, despite what we have heard that this is poor, beleaguered people. women and children, just seeking a better life. And, you know, those callous Westerners don't want

to give them refuge and charity for the poor sojourners. It's all, you will notice. It's basically all fighting age men. And they're laughing, they're joking, they're climbing up walls, breaking into people's homes, lighting things on fire, and just wreaking havoc, as they often, often do. This isn't even the first time. Five years ago, you saw 8,000 Moroccans pour into this very same city after the Moroccan government dropped its border controls. But the real issue here isn't about the Moroccan government or any other Muslim country. The real issue is that Spain dropped its border controls. Spain, the socialist government of Spain, Francisco Franco, where are you when we need you most? The socialist government of Spain just offered a massive amnesty, hundreds of thousands of

people to illegal aliens who have poured into the country. And what happens when you offer amnesty, lesson to Republicans who want to be tolerant and moderate and compromise on comprehensive immigration reform, a lesson that when you give foreigners, foreign criminals, amnesty, you get more foreign criminals. That's just what happened. And so what are these future doctors and engineers doing? Are they pouring in to improve Spain and the European Union? And no, they're lighting vans on fire and they're committing crimes and they're bragging about it while they do it. Ceuta has a population of about 86,000 people. 60,000 foreigners just poured into the country.

So you're basically doubling the size of this city and now half the population being foreign. This is similar to what we saw in Lampedusa, Lampedusa, this little island off of Italy, where it becomes a major cross-section for the African migrants to pour in totally overwhelmed the local population. The reason they're doing it, the reason they go to places like Lampedusa, the reason they go to places like Suta is they're easy to get to. So if you're in North Africa, you just head over there and then you're in this tiny little place, but because of Spain's

stupid rules that throw up in the borders, because of the European Union's stupid rules that throw up in the borders, once you're in anywhere even approximating European territory, you can get basically anywhere else in Europe, which is really the point. They're not going to stop in Utah. They're not going to stop in North Africa. They're going to keep ongoing, including coming to the United States, but certainly throughout Europe. More than one in five people in Spain right now, all of Spain, not just the North African territories, but all of Spain. More than one and five people are foreign born. In America, we're not quite there yet, but we're pretty close. What are we at? We're a little north of 15% foreign born,

basically the highest foreign born percentage of the population we've ever had in the United States. in Spain it's even worse. And it's going to be very tempting to blame this on the foreigners. It's going to be very tempting to blame this on the Muslims. And you're going to see even right-winger saying this. In their outrage at seeing their countries invaded, their sovereignty mocked,

you're going to see people placing all of the blame on Muslims, some change in tactic from these Muslim foreigners. I think that totally misses the point because it misses the lessons of history. when it comes to the Islamic invasion of Western Christian lands, the Muslims have not changed at all. This is going to sound kind of offensive to Muslims, but it's actually not. It's more an indictment of the West. Since Islam was founded in the 7th century, Islam has not changed at all. This is one of the defining features of Islam. Islam is just like a brute force of nature.

Islam is like divine retribution. Islam is just this thing that keeps doing what it has always done. What has changed is not the tactics of the Muslim invaders. What has changed is the West's tolerance of it, the West's courage to stand up against it, the West's understanding of itself as a unified civilization that is different from the foreign Islamic civilization. to even call it the West gives away the whole game, because we used to call this civilization Christendom. We no longer really call it Christendom because we no longer acknowledge our Christian identity. You saw this with the formation of the European Union. It was a big flashpoint decades

ago when the European Union was formed, they could have put into their constitution that Europe is a Christian place. In fact, you would say that is the one thing that should unite Europe is that it is Christian. They don't all speak the same language. They don't all look the same. They don't all cook the same food. They don't all have the same music. But the one thing that has always united Europe as a coherent civilization is Christianity. The European Union refused to acknowledge that. So then what is Europe? What is the West? We think about this when we talk about America. The real cretalist types, they say America, it's not a place, it's not a race, it's not a people, it's not a language, it's not. America is an idea. And you say, okay, they really

broaden this to the West. I mean, the UK has adopted this creedalist view, and really a lot of the West has. You say it's an idea, but then push them on it. Say, okay, I accept your premise. What's the idea? They won't tell you what the... Is the idea of Christianity? That, Christianity is more than an idea. It's a fact. It's a religion. It's grounded in historical events, namely the incarnation, the crucifixion, the resurrection. And then the development of the church that our Lord will not leave even until the end of the age. But is that the idea? No. What is the idea? Is the idea political sovereignty? Is the idea self-government? Well, not always, but even if it were, the people of these countries, Spain, et cetera, they don't really have sovereignty.

We're told we don't have a say in who gets to come into our country. We're told that in America. They're told that in Europe. The Europeans keep voting against mass migration. In the UK, back when Europe was part of the UK, they then voted for the Brexit to get out of, sorry, back when the UK was part of Europe, they voted for the Brexit so that the UK could detach from Europe to try to get less migration. What happened? They got more migration. In Italy, they elect the Maloney government because they want less migration. What happens? Brussels says you have to have more migration. In Hungary, they elect Orban because they don't want migration. What happens? Brussels throws everything at the wall to get rid of Orban so they can install their

own guys so that they can insist upon migration. So it's not self-government. It's not sovereignty. What's the idea? The idea is freedom? Okay, how do you define freedom? In the West, we always define freedom as the right to do what we ought, not the ability to do whatever we please. We understood the truth is setting us free. We understood, for our history, freedom in Christ. We recognized that vice and licentiousness and sin is not freedom, it's actually slavery. So is it freedom in the abstract? By the way, what would that even mean? Even if you accept the silly liberal idea of freedom, is someone who believes in freedom who lives in Tibet? Is that person there for a westerner? No. How about someone who lives in Morocco? No. This is just what Islam does. And there have been, I think, ridiculous arguments from the left about this flashpoint in North Africa. They say, well, you know, look, Suta and Malia, the other Spanish territory there, these are really African places. Why is Spain colonizing Africa? North Africa is a Muslim territory. Why are we still colonizing a Muslim territory? Hey, fellas, I don't know if your history buffs, but you know,

North Africa was Christian for over 500 years before the Muslims conquered it. You know from like the first century, certainly beginning to solidify in the second and third centuries, Africa, North Africa was Christian territory, as was the Levant, until Muhammad and his followers conquered it. And they didn't stop in North Africa. They then got into Iberia. They conquered Spain starting around 7-11 AD. And they kept going. They tried to conquer France. Thankfully, Charlemagne's grandpa, Charles Martel kicked him out at the Battle of Tours in 732. Otherwise, they would have taken all of Europe. But we used to have people who stopped them, turned them back. In Iberia, what they did was they fought, starting in 711 AD, they fought for 800 years until the Reconquista

was completed under Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492, the same year that Columbus sailed the ocean blue. 800 years it took to boot these people out. This is just what Islam does. There can be no historical or indigenous argument for Islam to control North Africa, certainly not to control Spain or France or anywhere else. Those indigenous arguments, anti-colonial arguments are total nonsense, even by the standard of the Muslims who don't care about anti-colonialism, they want to colonize the entire world.

So what has changed is not Islam. What has changed is us and our view of ourselves. And it's going to take a lot more than liberal argumentation. And it's going to take a lot more than the supposed material prosperity of liberalism. It's going to take a lot more than iPhones to convince these people not to radically change our civilization, to invade, to conquer. It's going to take tough men with weapons, crucially, who believe in something, who believe in something that is different from what is invading. Because what Europe, with the West, has effectively said, including America, what we have said in recent decades is that we're just an idea, but we can't define the idea. The idea that defines us is anything, anything that anyone wants it to be.

which is to say we have decided that we are nothing. We are a vacuum. And guess what happens to vacuums? Other stuff fills them up. That's the definition of a vacuum. And that's exactly what is happening in the West, in the United States, in mainland Europe. And you're seeing this in particular in the European outposts that still remain in places like North Africa and the islands around it. That's what you're see. We've said that we are nothing. And a civilization that says that it is nothing will be conquered and deserves to be conquered. Do you want an alternative? If you want an alternative, you've got to get really tough. You have to oust these socialist governments. You need to impose a little bit of authority. I know we're all afraid of that word authority. And you need tough guys with weapons who believe in

something to say no and turn them back, like we have been doing since the eighth century, with sometimes more success, sometimes less success. Do we think that Charles Martella's the bad guy? Was the Holy League the bad guy at the Battle of Lepanto when they turned away the invading Turkish hordes? Was Jan So Biaski the bad guy at the Battle of Vienna? Turned away the 17th century attempt of the Muslims to conquer Europe? No. If anything, it is the people who control our governments today.

They're the bad guys. They're selling out our cultural patrimony. They're selling out our countries by turning them. into nothing. Well, we need them to be something. And some liberal platitudes are not going to constitute something. The only thing that can possibly define the West is Christianity. And if we don't believe it anymore, we're going to be defined by something else. Now, speaking of our politicians, you know, the Democrats have replaced that Senate candidate in Maine. They picked this guy. It was a very cynical attempt to appeal to the working class, which they consider to be violent and stupid and

nasty and vulgar and ugly. And so the left, which has lost the working class during the Trump era, they said, we're going to appeal to the working class. We're going to pick this guy, Graham Platner. He's going to be our Senate candidate in Maine. And he might be a Nazi, you know, he's got this Nazi tattoo that he didn't cover up until very, very recently because he was going to run for Senate. And yeah, okay, there's, there are some rape allegations against him, like multiple, a lot of rape allegations, some of which seem pretty credible. But whatever, those stupid rude, working class, violent idiots, those bitter clingers, whatever, they'll go for it. And it didn't work. It blew up in their face. They said, okay, we're going to get rid of that guy. Just in time.

We're going to replace him with the new Democrat Senate nominee in Maine. This is great. We're going to sail to victory over Susan Collins in the midterms. Just one problem. Turns out this guy has fathered multiple children with his cousin. We'll get to that in a moment. First, I want to tell you about Cardiff. Go to cardiff.com.co. slash knolls. People sometimes talk about the economy is though it's this abstract thing floating somewhere above our heads. It is not the economy is your local coffee shop. It's the family-owned construction company. It's the neighborhood machine shop. It is the husband and wife who decided to risk everything to build a business instead of simply collecting a paycheck. The problem is that building a business is hard enough without having to

spend weeks or even months trying to convince a bank to help you grow. The paperwork alone is enough to discourage a lot of good entrepreneurs. That's where Cardiff comes in. If you want bank rates without the bank delays, Cardiff can get your business approved in minutes and funded the very same day. Check out Cardiff.co slash Knowles, K&WLAS, up to half a million dollars in same-day funding. America built on the backs of small business, and finally we have some people helping them out. Cardiff has funded more than $12 billion for businesses since 2004, making them the largest privately held small business lender in the country. The application takes less than five minutes.

There is no impact on your personal credit, and business owners can use the funding however they need. banks try to lock out small businesses. Cardiff has the key. Big banks may not want to approve your business loans. Cardiff does. If you've been in business for at least a year and are pulling in $20,000 a month in revenue, apply now for up to half a million bucks in same-day business funding at Cardiff.c.c-o-c-c-o-s-noles-N-W-L-A-S. Real Growth, fast funding, Cardiff, borrow better. You cannot make it up. Got to give a hat tip here. Great reporting from my buddy. Steve Robinson up there in Maine, really single-handedly carrying the conservative media in Maine, really crucial reporting. And the report suggests that the new Democrat Senate candidate in Maine,

Troy Jackson, to replace the alleged Nazi rapist Graham Platner, he didn't marry his cousin. They're not married. But they live together as if they were married and their cousins. their second cousins, they've fathered, they've raised and created multiple children together. Really, if you look at the platinum pick as just a really cynical choice by Democrats, we say, all right, okay, we got to win back the working class. What are those people like? Yeah, they probably like Nazism and what else do they like? They like vulgarity and they like domestic abuse and rape and stuff like the drunks.

And yeah, just give them one of those guys. That didn't work. All right. What else does the working class? like, they're a bunch of incestuous maniacs. Let's give him a guy who fathered two kids with his cousin. Just so cynical. It's so deeply cynical.

I guess this does relate to our previous story in as much as we are talking about people who have children with their cousins. We do see a kind of connection between the invading Muslim hordes and the Democrat Senate candidate in Maine. This guy, the fact that he fathered a couple of kids with his cousin, allegedly, That's like the 15th worst thing about him. This guy is bad on his face. Radically pro-LGB ideology, radically pro-abortion. He wasn't always that way. So he's either just a cynical politician who doesn't really believe in anything or maybe even worse. He's just become much more radical over time. He supports abolishing ice. So he wants Maine to turn into the next Utah. He wants open borders. he wants hostile hordes of young violent men to pour into our country, to pour into Maine, I guess.

Maybe he thinks Maine is far enough away. Lily White is the freshly driven snow that it'll be protected. But I don't think he really cares. He wants to open up the borders, abolish ice, stop people from deporting the criminals. And by the way, the man with children by his cousin is endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America. So the Dems think that they've put forward a more attractive candidate. More attractive, perhaps to his family members. I don't think more attractive to voters. What they've done here is the same thing that you saw with James Talleyico in Texas. In Texas, the Democrats realized after getting obliterated in the 2024 election because of their embrace of wokeness,

they said, we cannot have a candidate who seems woke. So in the case of James Talariko, they pick a guy who's white, he's ostensibly straight, he pretends to be Christian. He's not Christian. If anything, he's anti-Christian. Everything he says about religion is hideously sacrilegious, contrary to the faith. He invokes the Blessed Virgin Mary to promote abortion. He says that God is non-binary. He makes a mockery of religion. He says he's learned more about his religion from Muslims than from Christian writers. I guess he's learned more from Saeed Qutib than St. Paul. But the Democrats, because there's so, it's not that they're superficial, they do actually consider ideas, but they, they are cynical

about their voters. They have a very low opinion of voters. And so they say, well, on the surface, he seems like a normal guy. But you scratch just slightly below the surface in Texas. And James Talleyico is as radical a politician as we've ever had run for office. Same thing goes for this guy up in Maine. They say, okay, he's, he's a white guy. It's going to, same thing as Tala Rico. He's a white guy. He wears button-down shirts. He, he, he's straight. He does have some weird sexual predilections

that would appear, but at least his cousin's a woman. So we're going to pick that guy. But he's just as radical as any of them. He's as radical as Ilhan Omar or AOC or Zohran Mamdani or any of the other Democratic socialists. He is endorsed by the socialists.

This is a problem for the Democrat base. New numbers just came in being reported by the Hill, according to a new CNN poll. One in three Democrats now identifies as a socialist. We have never seen anything like this in the country. Even during the big rise of socialism, anarchism, bombings on Wall Street, the rise of Eugene Debs running for president. When Eugene Debs ran for president, he got 8% of the vote. Now we have one in three voters of America's

biggest political party, I openly identifying a socialist. We'll get to that in a second. First, I want to tell you about Pure Talk. We go to PureTalk.com slash Knowles, CanadaWLES. In a recent industry survey, Pure Talk was the only wireless company to receive five stars in every category. Coverage, support, value, and data. You deserve five-star wireless service, and now Pure Talk has an invitation for you. Switch to Pure Talk for just 15 bucks a month for a limited time. Any plan, including their top shelf unlimited data plans, just 15 bucks a month for your first three months. No contract needed, just an insanely low offer to switch to a top-rated company.

You know how you get five stars for support? Dedicated U.S. customer service team that actually speaks English. You know how you get five stories for value? You save the average family for over $1,000 a year versus big wireless. I absolutely love Pure Talk. I have had my Pure Talk phone for, I don't know, six years now or something like that. You're getting the best towers. You heard me say pretty good towers. That's not what I said. I said, the best towers, best service, unbelievable prices, wonderful people running the company, support your values. And right now, you can get any plan for 15. bucks a month for your first three months. Go to Peartalk.com slash Knowles to claim this offer. Peartalk.com slash K&WLAS to start saving today. Folks, a couple days ago, I announced

the Mayflower Leather Travel Humidor is now available. We have, in fact, as I predicted, sold through a lot of our stock. Actually, I think we've sold through more than half the stock already. If you want it, I'm like not even really promoting this thing that much. I do want you, the great Michael Null show listeners, the chim du la chreem to know about this,

because it is going to sell out. This is the thing with physical products is there are limited numbers of them. Beautiful Spanish cedar interior, which is what you want. People use other woods. You really don't want that. You want Spanish cedar. This is your real classy carry case. It's going to protect your cigars in your suitcase, your briefcase, wherever. It's also just nice to bring to the dinner, the party, the restaurant, you trip. Get the Mayflower, leather, travel, humidors, so you are ready wherever your voyage takes. You must be 21 years old or older to order. Voidware prohibited conditions and exclusions. apply. Really, really troubling report. About a third of Democrats identify as Democratic

Socialists. But again, the Democratic modifier here to the word socialist is immaterial. Yeah, we have a democratic system. So if you're going to be a socialist in America, you pretty much have to be a Democratic socialist. But what really defines ideology is the socialism. This, according to the CNN poll conducted by SSRS. Now, what this also tells you is that the Democratic Party has totally moved past Christianity. Christianity, which was the animating force in America, there was always a heterodox take on Christianity in the United States, because the United States was founded, going all the way back to the Mayflower, which is a great cigar brand, by the way, founded by these brownist separatists who didn't want to purify the Church of England. They

actually weren't even Puritans. They wanted to separate from the Church of England. The Church of England, which they viewed as too Catholic. It wasn't Catholic. It's obviously Protestant. but they wanted to separate entirely. Then you had waves of Puritans coming by, who were sort of lower church Calvinists who wanted to change the Church of England. Then they come in, but then you have all sorts of groups in America.

You even had Catholics in Maryland, not for very long because the Protestants then kind of took over and kept Catholics out of public office, but you still had some Catholics. You had a Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence, you had some Catholic founding fathers, but all sorts of groups. every variety of Protestantism you can imagine. They even had some Catholics, they even had some Jews.

Washington famously wrote a letter telling the Jews that they're part of the American project and they should feel welcome here and all the rest of it. Nevertheless, the country was always broadly Christian. You see this in the Federalist Papers, Federalist No. 2 by John Jay. You see this in the writings of John Adams, who says that independence in America was won on the principles of Christianity in which all the sects are united. you see this in speeches in America going back to a shiny city upon a hill model of Christian charity, Governor John Winthrop, all the way up through Ronald Reagan invoking that very same speech, all the way up till today, at least by the Republicans. But socialism and Christianity are incompatible. They're actually contrary to each other. And speaking of those Catholics, I've on this show quoted many, many popes, many times who have pointed out that one cannot simultaneously be a Christian and a socialist. Socialism condemned by popes, going back to the rise of socialism with Pope Pius the 9th, Blessed Pius the 9th, and 10th and 11th and 12th. You have invectives against socialism by Pope Leo the 13th. Popes calling socialists a wicked confederacy that seeks to steal

the very gospel itself. You have popes, even liberal popes like John the 23rd, the Pope who inaugurated the beginning of the Second Vatican Council, well into the 20th century. Pope John the 23rd saying that a Christian cannot adhere even to a moderate form of socialism. But let's drill in a little bit more because I've said until I'm blue in the face on the show that Christians can't be socialists. And I've given all sorts of historical authority for that. But here's why. Let's zoom in on Pope Leo the 13th. Taylor Marshall has a really good rundown on its website of this.

But some quotes from Leo the 13th as to why Christians can't be socialists. Leo writes, Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the very interests of every wage earner since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition. So you have, you saw this in New York, but so Ramam Dani. Zoroam Dani said, I'm going to have a piettaire tax of only the very wealthiest people who don't even really live in New York, and we're going to tax them. It's only going to be about 31,000 people.

Now you'd say, well, that's still pretty wrong in principle. But some people are willing to make moral compromises. They say, okay, as long as it's only a tiny percentage of the super duper duper wealthy, then it's okay to soak them and take their property arbitrarily. But then what happened when it was implemented? When it was implemented, it wasn't 31,000 people. It was almost a million people. And they didn't just going to take their property.

Zora Mundani doxed them. At the same time that the left is calling for violence against conservatives, against the wealthy, against anyone who isn't, purple-haired, you know, shrieking antifa slogans, you have Zohran Mamdani giving the names and physical addresses of the people that he's trying to rob. And it's a lot more people. It's an order of magnitude and multiples more than what he said. So what Leo is saying is, by attacking these individuals, by trying to take their possessions and appropriate them supposedly to the community at large, the socialists are striking at every wage earner. Because if they can do it to the rich,

they can do it to you, and they will sooner rather than later. He puts, he puts, points out that Thomas Aquinas, talking about children, says that before the child attains the use of free will is under the power in charge of its parents. The socialists, therefore, in setting aside the parent and setting up a state supervision, act against natural justice and destroy the structure of the home. So the socialists are always trying to get at your kids. That's why they were trying to put weird sex stuff in your kids' curriculum all the way down to kindergarten. It's why they're constantly trying to get the kids out of the home and put them in pre-pre-pre-k and pre-pre-k and pre-pre-pre-pure-Pu-K, set up by the state to get them out of that influence of the home,

because they believe that they have a right to your children, so that they can brainwash them, so that they can indoctrinate them in their own theories. Aquinas points out, and Pope Leo is Pope Leo the 13th, not the 14th who's the current Pope, but the 13th is pointing out that St. Thomas Aquinas is right when he says that here the socialists are acting not just against property, but against natural justice by turning the child against the parent. Leo goes on, says it must be, first of all, recognize the condition of things inherent in human affairs must be born with, for it is impossible to reduce civil society to one dead level. So the socialists say they want to be egalitarian, they want to even out inequalities, but this is not possible. Even in principle, this is not possible because diversity is part of human life. Some people are bigger, some people are faster, some people are smarter, some people are more clever, some people have this aptitude or that aptitude. So you can never reduce human society down. So you can never reduce human society down. to this homogenized equality. That is not only contrary to justice, it's just contrary to reality to the given world. And so he writes, socialists may in that intent do their utmost,

but all striving against nature is in vain. So socialism is an attack on nature itself. And he points out, such an inequality is far from being disadvantageous either to individuals or to the community. Social and public life can only be maintained by means of various kinds of capacity for business in the playing of many parts. And each man as a rule chooses the part which suits his own particular peculiar domestic condition. So he says, look, you can't get rid of all inequalities and you shouldn't want to because none of us is God. None of us can do everything perfectly. So the fact that some people are better at things than others, the fact that there is a natural diversity to life, not this contrived diversity of throwing open our borders and

flooding and displacing the populations of countries with foreigners. But the natural diversity that comes out of life, that's actually good because, you know, I'm pretty good at, I'm pretty good at selling cigars and writing books, writing blank books especially. But, you know, I'm good, I guess I'm good at podcasting. But you know what I'm not good at baseball? And Aaron Judge, well, he's actually on the disabled list right now. It's really annoying. But Aaron Judge or other good baseball players, they're probably not good at podcasting or selling cigars or whatever. But they are pretty good at baseball. I'm not good at carpentry, but some carpenters really good at being a carpenter. This natural diversity, this inequality is actually good. It's real, so you can't deny it,

and it actually is conducive to our benefit when we can turn it to good and use people's talents. And one way to do that to efficiently allocate resources around an economy is the free market with a Christian morality around it that makes sure that the people who are truly destitute are brought in, are not just left to die on the street. That's what Christianity does. Socialism leaves people to die on this. They say they don't leave people to die on the street, but they emiserate people. That is the effect of socialism. And for others who are not as educated, who are not as trained, we want to bring them in so that they can use their unequal and of natural talents for the good. This is part of a post-Christian society. Just as you see the tolerance,

the toleration of endless hordes of foreigners with foreign religions and foreign behaviors pouring into our country. That's part of a post-Christian society. Going back to Charles Martel of the Franks all the way up to Francisco Franco of Spain, when we defined ourselves as a Christian society, we didn't tolerate that stuff. A post-Christian society becomes a vacuum and sucks up everyone else from the rest of the world. Well, same thing here. In a post-Christian society, socialism is very attractive. In fact, that's the only kind of society in which socialism can be attractive. Okay. I do want to get to, before we get to the mailbag, I want to get to this story. Speaking of Christian society and laws that uphold the moral order, is this new law in Minnesota

that will ban software that allows users to nudify an image. So you upload an image of the girl in your math class. You upload an image of that lady at your gym that you think is pretty cute. You upload an image from her, and all these women and girls are posting pictures of themselves endlessly on social media. So you just grab one of those images. You upload it to one of these websites, and the website will generate a nude image of the girl. And Minnesota says you can't do that anymore. So the reason that Elon Musk is being smeared over this is Elon Musk owns Grock, XAI, and the AI bots can be used for myriad activities, one of which I guess could be this sort of thing. So Musk is coming in, and he says, there's a lawsuit. And the left is saying, Elon Musk wants

to encourage nudifying applications on his platform. And that's not really what this is about. Elon Musk is saying, yeah, yeah, no, you shouldn't be able to nudify people. That's really bad. But, you know, this legislation could attack all sorts of other things in my software. And so we need to make sure that the regulations are right here. And Elon Musk is much better for society than the government of Minnesota. And so, you know, he needs to be heard out on this. And the legislation does need to be crafted very carefully. But in principle, the legislation is very good. And it's actually even better than the legislators think it is. Because the way this legislation is framed, the way this whole debate is framed, is that you should not be able to take a

picture of some lady and nudify the image without that person's consent. That's the moral principle on which this legislation and this whole debate hinges. Consent. You should not be able to generate pornographic images of people without their consent. And yeah, I guess I'll take that law, but it's really not about consent. The reason that the First Amendment does not protect this kind of speech, does not protect nudifying apps, the generation of these kinds of images, is not because of a lack of consent. It's because it's obscene. It's because it's pornography.

It's because it appeals to the prurian interest. It's because it takes people out of their reason and actually, rather than expanding the possibility of speech, it actually undermines the possibility of speech because speech requires that we're in command of our rational faculties. That's why content that appeals to the prurion interest is not protected. That's why, for the vast majority of American history, until liberal judges decided to destroy our free speech tradition in the name of free speech in the 20th century, that is why we banned all this kind of stuff. the way that you know this is silly, the argument over consent is that, let's say I were a great painter. I'm not a good baseball player. I'm not a good carpenter. I'm not a good painter either. Let's say I were a really good painter, though. And a creep, a total pervert. Let's say that I were a student and I looked at that girl in my math class or I went to the gym, which I certainly never do, and I looked at that lady in my gym. And I had a perfect image of this person. And I went home and I painted an elaborated an elaborate.

photo realistic nude image of that person. The issue here would not be that I was wrong because I didn't get the consent of that woman. And there's really nothing to stop me from doing that other than my lack of talent in painting and my own moral code, which is the Christian code. The thing that is really creepy and wrong and pervy about that, and that where it intersects with public life, like companies that offer apps to nudify, the reason it's wrong is because it's gross and pervy and creepy and weird and appeals to the purrary interest and is obscene. But the liberal morality says that the only valid moral criterion is consent. because liberalism as such aims at as an ultimate good the maximizing of individual autonomy.

And this is why this actually touches on other debates that you're seeing play out, I think, in a sort of labored way over even the presidential election, which are these terms floating around post-liberalism, other to integralism and this ism and that ism. Let's focus on post-liberalism for a second, which has floated around, conservative circles, actually for decades now. Even liberal circles, actually. What post-liberalism is ultimately saying is that liberalism, political liberalism, is insufficient.

And one of the reasons that political liberalism is insufficient is because it takes, as its only moral criterion, consent, and it makes as the ultimate good, the maximizing of individual autonomy. But we all know that the society that maximizes individual autonomy is the society that says you can kill yourself in the street shooting up heroin. It's the society that says you can chop off your genitals and pretend to be the opposite sex. It's the society that says that boys can play in girls' sports and boys can go into girls' bathrooms. It's, in other words, a terrible society. It's totally contrary to society because society is how we all live together,

because man is a political creature. So even this discussion of post-liberalism, it's not a movement it's not an ideology even. It's not the political program of some candidate or other. Post-liberalism is, I think Adrian Vermeul pointed this out, is an entirely negative category. And that way it's kind of like Protestantism. Protestantism, there's no one Protestantism. You can't really just attack Protestantism as such, not for very long at least, because Protestantism is defined by what it is not. Protestantism is just not Catholicism. But all the Protestants disagree over all sorts of stuff. The same thing goes for post- liberalism. And post-liberalism in many ways is a descriptive fact rather than a prescriptive political program because it says, look, liberalism has failed and we all kind of acknowledge it. Even the Democrats in Minnesota acknowledge it when they pass laws against denudifying applications. We acknowledge it when we pass laws against drugs. We acknowledge it when there's a massive popular uprising against transgenderism. It's a recognition that there's a role for a certain kind of autonomy. There's a role for individual liberty as opposed to political liberty,

but these are not the ultimate good. These are instruments in service of something. You see this in the preamble to the Constitution that say that the Constitution is established to give to people the blessings of liberty. Well, the blessings of liberty, one, have to be blessings, not curses. This is why it's silly to call transgenderism a blessing of liberty, as David French did. But the blessings of liberty, phrase, which frames our Constitution, tells you right off the bat. Liberty is not an end unto itself. Liberty is for something. So in a way, I guess we're all post-liberals now. Okay. I want to get to my favorite time of the week, the mailbag first, though. I didn't pick the comment. No, did I? I did pick the comment today. This is from Charles N. Charge, who says, Dr. Fauci should be forced to take COVID boosters

for the rest of his life. Yes, it's a punishment. I guess it's not lethal injection. It's supposedly healthy injection. Isn't it? It's a very Dantean punishment, you know, where the sinners get what they want. It's very C.S. Lewesey. It's actually a lot of Christian mystics have pointed this out over the years. That hell is the place where you get what you want. And if your desires are evil, then you're just going to get that. You're going to be punished by your very desires. That's kind of a definition of hell and sin. Yeah. So, okay, Fauci's punishment is he just gets endless COVID boosters. See how you like it. Okay, my favorite time of the week is here. Our mailbag is sponsored by Pure Talk.

At a puretalk.com slash Noles CanadaWLAS to start saving today. Take it away. Hi, Michael. It's Sarah again. Your last yes or no episode, you guys talked a lot about trad wives. I am one. I know your wife is one. There are so many of us that just like don't engage on the internet.

And that's why we're like so happy and thriving, honest of goodness. What more can I be doing to help? this world because I feel like I got my kids handled, we're doing great, but like there's more that I need to be doing, especially after Charlie and everything. What more can the trad wives be doing to help

this world? Great question and I love, I've actually played this question this morning. I was going through the voicemail bag that Professor Jacob sent over and I'm lying in bed with sweet little Lisa and as you're playing it, she jokes, she goes, well tell her to stop talking to a man on the internet through the voicemail bag. But it's a joke. That was a joke.

It's a really, really good question. because you're right, you're a trad wife as a sweet little Elisa. People always say, when is Elisa going to come on the show? Say she's not because she's actually a tradwife. All these women who have podcasts, who are influencers, who are always posting themselves on Instagram. Sometimes they'll say they're trad wives, even they'll have accounts about being a tradwife. But that's a contradiction in terms. If you are a trad wife social media influencer, you are by definition, not a trad wife. So what you're asking is, is there a role for women for a trad wife in public life because the trad wife is almost defined by the husband being

the face of the public life of the family and the wife being the face of the private life of the family. That's why the wife is a homemaker. There's recently some discussion on social media about this insidious shift in language. We used to call women who do what you do. We used to call them homemakers. Now we call them stay at home moms. What an insidious shift of language. Stay at home. Stay at home mom, it makes it sound like this woman is just like pop and bonbons all day watching Mori Povich. That's not what these women do. These women are more accurately described as home makers. You make a home. The man doesn't really make a home. The man might buy a home, but the man doesn't make a home. It's the wife who makes a home by managing the home economy,

by raising the children, by cooking, by cleaning, by doing all of those things, by curating the social life of the family. And so here, I guess, is where it intersects with public life, because the home has a door and people come in and out of it. We know that, and well, we know that. I don't, most people no longer know it, but that the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world and that the husband might be the head of the family, but you know, the wife might be the neck and the neck has a role in turning the head. But inasmuch as the wife is involved in the raising of children, she's going to be involved with the schooling of children. Inasmuch as the wife is involved in the social life the family. She's the one who's going to be curating the dinner parties, who's going to be

inviting people over, who's going to be involved in the community, especially the local community. That's the intersection, I think. And just as a matter of politics, a lot more relevant political good for your life can be accomplished at the local level. It's not to say there isn't a role of national politics. There is, and the conservatives need to get tougher about it. But in your position, as you're describing it, you could probably do much more good in involvement in your kids PTA and in civic engagement and setting up dinner parties and in managing the home economy, et cetera, et cetera, then you would in running for Senate, say, probably a lot more good would be done also because the Senate doesn't really do anything. Okay, next question.

Good morning, Michael. This is Arun. So I think we are viewing this Mr. Fauci scandal entirely through the wrong lens. I don't care about the virus's origins or whether Mr. Fauci funded the research that created it through EcoHealth Alliance, or if the virus even existed or not. I care about the fact that he advised the American people to shut down bars, restaurants, movie theaters, bowling alleys, and all the other leisure activities that make life worth living. You do not have the right to do that to the American people. That is a violation of our basic right to locomotion. And that is why we should be angry at Mr. Fauci.

What is your take on the matter? Thank you, as always, for your wisdom. Yes, excellent question, Arun. I wouldn't use the same language of rights exactly that you're using. I wouldn't try to reduce it to something so simple or ideological as our right to locomotion. Because, you know, I don't have a right to locomotion when the handlebars come down on a train track and the train's going by. I have to stop at that. I have to stop at a red light. But the point that you're making, I think, is very good, which is that with Fauci, the thing he did is not just lie.

about a virus. The thing he did was not just a profit off of our misery. The thing he did was the thing he did was really screw up our society. The thing he did was stop kids from seeing their grandparents before they died. The thing he did was prevent marriages. The thing that he did was stop kids from going to school and going to prom and all the rest of it. He really messed up our political life, our traditions, and he did it for no good reason. And he lied to us about it. That's the real issue. His crime was not against our individual rights as much as it was against our whole political order, our community, our habits, our traditions. That's the issue. That's much harder to forgive him for than getting the science wrong or even lying about it. All right. One last

question before we get to the Membrum segmentum. Good morning, Michael. I'm just here to ask you kind of a question. A couple weeks ago, you said something about Ruth Becky Stan, Stan, think of how you said it. And just about immigration in general. specifically that people from these Muslim countries, we should let less of them in, and then we should focus more people from European countries and people with similar background, like that. And I largely agree, but it struck me because my father-in-law is actually from Uzbek, my wife is half Uzbek.

And he has actually been a net benefit to our country. You learned English before he came here, converted to Christianity, and is now a lieutenant colonel in the army. Because he's been such a good influence here and has allowed my wife to be here, I feel very strongly that he should have been allowed in here, and I'm glad that he came. But I do agree with you on the notion that we should really be bringing people in who can assimilate better, but I'm just wondering what you think the betting process for that should be like, and how much should we do it generally, and how specific should we get with each person that comes in? Thank you very much. Great, great question, because he should have been let in. Yeah,

I think we would all agree he should have been let in. They should not have. In other words, all of the migrants, the 15 million illegals and then the also gigantic number of legal immigrants, they should not have been allowed to come in because this huge number of foreigners has really messed up social solidarity and angered people and violated the rights of Americans to determine who comes in. So they should not have been allowed in, but he should have been allowed in. Your description of your Uzbekia wife, I prefer the Herman Kane pronunciation of the country is, I think he called it, it was Becky, Becky, Stan, Stan, Stan, during the presidential race.

But your description of your wife, it reminds me of that great adage. Never ask a woman her age. Never ask a man his salary. Never ask a conservative, the ethnicity of his wife. Because, because, but this actually gets to the point of how conservatives think about migration. The left wants to say that we just hate people or we're xenophobic or we're racist or whatever.

And we're actually not. We're not. I'm sure your wife is great. Sounds like her father is awesome. It sounds like it's not, our opposition to the migration this ties us all the way back to the top of the show. Do not just blame it on the foreigners.

It's actually not chiefly about the foreigners. When it comes to Muslims in North Africa and elsewhere, they've been trying to invade the West forever. Nothing about them has changed. We are the ones who have changed. It's not exactly about something that they are doing. It's something that we have done, which is we've changed how our societies work.

We have stopped listening to the sensitivities of people who claim a legitimate right to determine who comes in and out. And the issue with the migrants is that they're not from here. Even if they're really nice and law-abiding, they often don't speak our language, they often don't believe our religion,

they certainly don't have our customs and habits when they arrive here. Some countries are closer to our customs and habits than others. It's easier to assimilate a Brit than it is to assimilate a Tibetan or a Ghanaian or something. But it's not really about them. It's about migration.

Even if the migrants were the most lovely people in the world, and a lot of them are not. But even if they were, that's not the issue. The issue is that you just have too many of them. So we need a period of severe restriction of migration. Not because we hate people, not because we think they're all evil jerks or something, but just because of migration itself. A polity cannot tolerate too large a percentage of foreigners. You need to let them assimilate over time. Your father-in-law assimilated very, very quickly. Others do not. So we need to send the ones who won't back, the ones that will tolerate will assimilate over time. They'll be basically indiscernible from ordinary Americans over time, but that takes a process of generations. And you can't have that

process play out at all when you're flooding the country with foreigners. It really does highlight a great answer conservatives have to the left, which is the left just fundamentally misunderstands our objection to immigration, and they misunderstand immigration too. Or maybe they understand it, and they just, they do want to destroy our countries. Okay, it's fake headline Friday. The rest of the show continues now. You do not want to miss it. Become a member use code, NOLSKNAWLA,

so check out for two months free on all annual plans.